Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study

Abstract

Objective: To compare the distribution of P values in abstracts of randomised controlled trials with that in observational studies, and to check P values between 0.04 and 0.06.

Design: Cross sectional study of all 260 abstracts in PubMed of articles published in 2003 that contained "relative risk" or "odds ratio" and reported results from a randomised trial, and random samples of 130 abstracts from cohort studies and 130 from case-control studies. P values were noted or calculated if unreported.

Main outcome measures: Prevalence of significant P values in abstracts and distribution of P values between 0.04 and 0.06.

Results: The first result in the abstract was statistically significant in 70% of the trials, 84% of cohort studies, and 84% of case-control studies. Although many of these results were derived from subgroup or secondary analyses, or biased selection of results, they were presented without reservations in 98% of the trials. P values were more extreme in observational studies (P < 0.001) and in cohort studies than in case-control studies (P = 0.04). The distribution of P values around P = 0.05 was extremely skewed. Only five trials had 0.05 < or = P < 0.06, whereas 29 trials had 0.04 < or = P < 0.05. I could check the calculations for 27 of these trials. One of four non-significant results was significant. Four of the 23 significant results were wrong, five were doubtful, and four could be discussed. Nine cohort studies and eight case-control studies reported P values between 0.04 and 0.06, but in all 17 cases P < 0.05. Because the analyses had been adjusted for confounders, these results could not be checked.

Conclusions: Significant results in abstracts are common but should generally be disbelieved.

Figure 1

Inclusion of abstracts